Advice required - Online poker.... What am I doing wrong?

Flipper

I discussed this with Pilliowtalk in Dublin a few weeks ago and I would like to hear what some of you guys think.

I'm probably the opposite to a lot of people here. I started playing poker live years ago and only took to online in the last 18 months. It's this basic transition that I'm mostly interested in. I've played all sizes of games online from .25/.50 to 25/50 with moderate success. I find that I can spin small amounts into huge sums really quickly and usually then proceed to do the lost. I've done the 1,000 in 20k a few times and most of the time, I'll do the lot in one sitting. A couple of times, I've tried to maintain a specific roll for online poker and just when it starts to work nicely, I get bored and jump into the very biggest game I can find.

My question is: Why can I win consistently live and rarely string a few winning sessions together online? I know it's a pretty vauge question but any comments or advice would be appreciated. I openly admit that I have the worst bankroll management in the whole world and I'm sure that's a major factor. I'd love to hear from the online pros here and especially from anyone who has gone from being like me to a consistent, big winner.

Mr. Flibble

Warning, the following may be terrible advise!
I get the feeling that people on line are better bank rolled and will make big calls more easily, as its as simple as pressing a button. You don't have to push in a lump of chips and deal with a table full of people looking at you if you have just made a bad call. So perhaps bluffing online is less effective.

And in the same way it becomes a lot easier to bluff online. Do you find your self playing a lot more aggressively and trying to force things to happen if you feel you might have a small edge?

Also, players online are probably better on the whole. Never played at your stakes tho so can't judge.

Read the last entry in 88%concentration and take care of your bankroll!

RasTa

Flipper wrote:

I get bored and jump into the very biggest game I can find.

I think in general you just find it extremely boring? Therefore don't care what happens at any game selection? How many hands do you play a day?

If Spectre is about, he should be able to answer this question.

BigCityBanker

This will be an interesting thread. Im sh1t at both codes so il just watch from the sidelines.

Only thing I will say is when playing live the bit of banter that you give can really play to your advantage. I dont think people realise how much info they give away to you by answering your seemingly harmless/simple questions. Id guess this is one of your strengths and iv only watched you play live for an hour or so.

Im no good at Omaha but ive watched yourself and the other regulars play regularly at the 10/20 levels. What do your PT stats say about your post flop agression and how should they be interputed?

Im gonna sit by now and watch this one progress.

Lafortezza

If you lost a huge chunk of your online bankroll by taking shots at bigger games, say half, would you be absolutely gutted?
I mean more gutted that if you did the same with your live poker money. Maybe you see online poker as just numbers for keeping score instead of actual cash that you can buy stuff with.

That's what stops me taking big shots at limits above my bankroll because I never want to have to deposit money onto a poker site ever again. So apart from occasional stabs at 2/4 I'm sticking to 30-40 buy-ins for whatever level I'm at.

Are you getting bored because online poker is mostly a grind? Try playing different games, stud, O/8, limit and being profitable at them.

Basically it boils down to discipline I suppose. Nobody is forcing you to jump into higher games, can you pinpoint a reason why you do? If it's just because you see a soft table then there's nothing wrong with that except that you'll have to accept the higher variance and bigger swings in those bigger games.

Flipper

Mr. Flibble wrote:

Do you find your self playing a lot more aggressively and trying to force things to happen if you feel you might have a small edge?

I probably do. I think my biggest strength live is being able to create the image that I'm a loose player while actually playing reasonably conservatively. Online, I developed a habit of raising the button and the cutoff on EVERY hand. Live, I won't do that. I'm a big fan of min raises from all positions so I can see where the big pairs are pre flop. Also, live it's always full ring. Online, I almost always play 6 or less.

RasTa wrote:

I think in general you just find it extremely boring? Therefore don't care what happens at any game selection? How many hands do you play a day?

Maybe I do... Sometimes I'm totally focused and other times I just play for something to do. The amount of hands I play varies hugely from week to week. I don't play live very much anymore... Big Omha games rarely come together and when they do, bad players usually stay a mile away.

BigCityBanker wrote:

Im no good at Omaha but ive watched yourself and the other regulars play regularly at the 10/20 levels. What do your PT stats say about your post flop agression and how should they be interputed?

I've only got a new PC so all I can give you is my stats for the last 2 weeks or so. Honestly, I don't even know how to translate them so if there's anyone here who actually can, I'd love to hear what they think. BTW, I know this is a really small sample size (and one where I'm winning) but I'm most interested in the BB/100, VPIP, agression etc. PS: I don't know how to post these files up directly into my post but I've put them as attachments.

RasTa

Those are some stats.... VPiP is the highest I have ever seen from a winning player, but this is Omaha so I don't have a clue what's reasonable. For example anything over 50% is looser then any female from the Ward family and you are putting money into the pot 58% of the time. You should post this up on 2+2 as well. Any bb/100 at higher stakes over 5 is excellent although you need 100k hands to find that out.

cardshark202

Going from you stats, you've played as many hands in 2 weeks as some play in 2 days.
I have found that my discipline has improved as I have played more and more. Just play loads of hands, play more tables at once, you will not be so bored if you have to make several decisions every minute. Just start at whatever limits that you feel most comfortable at and set targets so you don't play higher until you are properly bankrolled for them. I have a system now where I only take shots at higher levels when there is a huge fish to chase so its worth the risk.
When I first started playing online I would play a bit at my normal level, start to lose get annoyed and take my whole roll up to the highest level possible. But since I have started playing like 5-6 days a week for at least 4-5 hours per day I have maintained much greater discipline and have been winning quite consistently. Only once have I tilted up to really high levels and even then it was because I saw a huge fish in the game.

Mr. Flibble

According to those stats you don't have any problems at all.

ArmaniJeanss

From an amateur perspective.

Last year I played (sober) about 600 STTs at $20 and $25 mainly single-tabling, and had a respectable ROI in the low 20%s.

I also played 500 STTs absolutely hammered drunk after the pub at $3 and $5 level, generally 3-tabling and had an ROI of 45%.

So I can effectively murder the game at a certain level (with almost no variance) or be a minor winner at a higher level (with quite big swings etc).

I suspect you pro's have the same sort of thing going at the levels you play, maybe you can murder 2/4 and make a healthy living, but you are always thinking of building a bankroll for a higher level and eventually taking a shot at the 20/40 game. This 'continually aiming higher' is definitely a symptom of a gambler (not meant in a bad way), as opposed to an organised serious professional.

The trick, which is difficult to achieve, is to settle for playing at a level where you are a consistent winner, rather than trying to play a level where you might be a winner if things go your way. This will then help your peace of mind and you are less likely to have the tilt etc which goes with losing pots at the limit of your comfort range.

If I can use my job as an analogy, I'm a decent computer programmer who earns $60K working for a minor software house doing stock systems - I stick in a comfort zone rather than aim for $100K+ jobs where I'd be stressed, work longer hours, I might fail etc. Poker pro's seem to be continuosly aiming for the next level.

Just some garbaged amateur thoughts.
AJs.

Flipper

cardshark202 wrote:

Going from you stats, you've played as many hands in 2 weeks as some play in 2 days.

This is actually only one of four sites I play on. I don't have the stats loaded into pokertracker for the rest. I know it's a small sample but my question isn't really about the PT stats. I just want to figure out why I win live and fail to do so (consistently) online.

MrPillowTalk

Flipper wrote:

I discussed this with Pilliowtalk in Dublin a few weeks ago and I would like to hear what some of you guys think.

I'm probably the opposite to a lot of people here. I started playing poker live years ago and only took to online in the last 18 months. It's this basic transition that I'm mostly interested in. I've played all sizes of games online from .25/.50 to 25/50 with moderate success. I find that I can spin small amounts into huge sums really quickly and usually then proceed to do the lost. I've done the 1,000 in 20k a few times and most of the time, I'll do the lot in one sitting. A couple of times, I've tried to maintain a specific roll for online poker and just when it starts to work nicely, I get bored and jump into the very biggest game I can find.

My question is: Why can I win consistently live and rarely string a few winning sessions together online? I know it's a pretty vauge question but any comments or advice would be appreciated. I openly admit that I have the worst bankroll management in the whole world and I'm sure that's a major factor. I'd love to hear from the online pros here and especially from anyone who has gone from being like me to a consistent, big winner.

For me tilt can be a major factor so I dont keep much money online so I cant blow my wad in one sitting, the most I usually have online at anyone time is between 20 and 40k. I dont really know what to say, its just so much easier to tilt online, also your game selection sucks you play short handed with Callaghan regularly which isnt a great idea as his tilt control is unreal.

I spent Dec playing nearly exclusively short handed 2040nl against aggro players, and allthough I had good success at it, tbh the swings are soul destroying sometimes. This month Ive played low stakes, 5/10 mainly and Ive played very poorly and still won 14k so I guess sometimes you just have to say when you find a game you can beat when your playing badly then play that game mainly.

Im a big fan of taking shots, and when I am playing well again Ill definately go back to 2550 and the tribeca 2040 but its too easy to lose a lot of money there when your not on top form. So basically dont play the game you think you can beat play the one you know you can beat.

As you win take money offline, it will take longer to build a roll online but at least you have wages to show for the time you have spent. BTW I am a divil for turning 1k into 20 or 30 and just pissing it off so your not alone.

Find out which account is rigged good and play that one.

When your on a heater move up.

Dont know what else to say really, players at higher stakes online are on average far tougher than live players but if your winning live there is no reason you shouldnt be winning online really. Practice getting better discipline (again do as I say not as I do Callaghan once abused me on MSN because I wouldnt quit playing LetsGamble off Tribeca HU, which is an exceedingly stupid arrogant move really, sure I think I can beat him but I KNOW I can beat the tards at 5/10) you get what Im saying.

nicnicnic

start using that three monitor set up you got, if that dont work then it must riggeed

Hectorjelly

Theres a lot in this thread that makes me feel uneasy, firstly there seems to be a totally unreasnable idea of what poker is and how successfull its possible to be at it. And secondly it makes no difference how good you are at poker, if you repeatadly play outside your roll you will go broke from time to time. This doesnt change whether you are playing online or offline. And if you play badly you will tend to lose. Most players, in most games, will do better if they tighten up and play less hands out of position.

I also think there is a lot of dishonestly, both in this thread and on this forum in general. Some of it is downright lying, but most of it is either lying that people have somehow managed to convince themselves or, are just unaware of.

MrPillowTalk

Hectorjelly wrote:

Theres a lot in this thread that makes me feel uneasy, firstly there seems to be a totally unreasnable idea of what poker is and how successfull its possible to be at it. And secondly it makes no difference how good you are at poker, if you repeatadly play outside your roll you will go broke from time to time. This doesnt change whether you are playing online or offline. And if you play badly you will tend to lose. Most players, in most games, will do better if they tighten up and play less hands out of position.

I also think there is a lot of dishonestly, both in this thread and on this forum in general. Some of it is downright lying, but most of it is either lying that people have somehow managed to convince themselves or, are just unaware of.

Would be interested in hearing you elaborate on this.

Lafortezza

Hectorjelly wrote:

Theres a lot in this thread that makes me feel uneasy...

I also think there is a lot of dishonestly, both in this thread and on this forum in general.

Throw out some specifics! especially if they apply to me

redzerdrog

just a point that pillowtalk made about taking money off for wages etc. A system I use is something called the double-half rule (think I read it somewhere) so basically when you double your bankroll withdraw half your profit, so if you have $1000 and double it to $2000 withdraw half your profit- $500 and then when you run you $1500 up to $3000 withdraw $750 and so on and so on. I know thses figures are smaller than you guys deal with but you get the idea.

nicnicnic

MrPillowTalk wrote:

Would be interested in hearing you elaborate on this.

me to this could get interesting

dacman

I think what u must do online is lower your sights be more disclipined in your play and in time build your bankroll slowly with as little risk as you can possibly achieve. I learned a long time ago that everytime my ego came into play- which would result in me playing biggergames- i almost inevitably got clobbered. A Mr PT said above you have to pick the best games and stick to these. to be a sucessfull online poker player in the long term you cannot be a GAMBLOR (risk taker)

Dantes

Would really like to know a little more about turning 1k into 20 (20k that is, I can turn 1k into $20 no problem!) so easily, if I could do it, I'd be pretty happy with my poker game...

luckylucky

redzerdrog wrote:

just a point that pillowtalk made about taking money off for wages etc. A system I use is something called the double-half rule (think I read it somewhere) so basically when you double your bankroll withdraw half your profit, so if you have $1000 and double it to $2000 withdraw half your profit- $500 and then when you run you $1500 up to $3000 withdraw $750 and so on and so on. I know thses figures are smaller than you guys deal with but you get the idea.

Yeah, I'll second that one, I think it's a good thing to withdraw a good chunk of your winnings at certain points, although the amount of money you have overall is the same whether it's in the bank or online I think if the amoutn you have online is paired down somewhat it keeps you hungrier and sharper, sitting on a big online roll at least in my case has left me complacent at times.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Flipper

I too would be mildly interested in what HJ has to say following on from his first post. I'm not sure if it's a dig at me and if it is, it's a little bit cryptic to take offence from!

If people want to know now the likes of myself and Pillow have spun small amounts into larger amounts (and how to lose it too!), I suppose it could be a topic for another thread. I really would like to keep the thread on topic and I'd love to hear the opinions of the online players eg. Gholi, KP, Daithio, Halibut, NCFC Robbie, Pok3rPlaya, Bops, Ocallagh, Roundtower etc (sorry if I didn't name you) and the thoughts of anyone who has an opinion.

Also, if anyone here is familiar of the corrects figures for Omaha Poker Tracker, could they please explain the "correct" numbers I should be shooting towards. I'm new enough to Poker Tracker so an overview of the most common stats would be great.

bohsman

HJ gave the answer, if you play outside your br youll go broke from time to time, you also answer your own question, dont play if your not focused.

PT stats, Im no expert on PLO but from the little Ive read you should be playing tighter than holdem which would mean a vpip of around 15, shorthanded would obviously change this a bit but not much.

Ste05

Is this a thinly veiled brag post, who seeks advice about their on-line poker asking "What am I doing wrong?" when they are currently running at 21.88 PTBB/100.

As Bohsman and HJ have said, you answered your own question in the OP:

"I openly admit that I have the worst bankroll management in the whole world and I'm sure that's a major factor. "

Without BR management you are guaranteed to go broke at some stage, live or on-line.

Here's a question for you: have you ever thought about it the other way, and that the only reason your Live BR hasn't been obliterated from time to time is because there isn't a regular and easy-to-get-to 25/50 Live game??

luckylucky

bohsman wrote:

PT stats, Im no expert on PLO but from the little Ive read you should be playing tighter than holdem which would mean a vpip of around 15, shorthanded would obviously change this a bit but not much.

This is the problem with reading books, maybe if everyone is playing perfect poker this would be true, but a lot of good Omaha players play quite loose as they know they can outplay their weaker opponents post flop making it Ev+ big time for them to play that way. I mean some opponents in Omaha will hardly ever fold pre-flop, to call just 15% of the time in games like this would be very weak tight imo.

I'm nowhere near as loose stats wise as Flipper but at the end of the day it's whatever works. If you call just 15% of the time online, imo you are not going to win, certainly at the higher levels, you are marked as having a strong hand and if you get action after by and large it's when your strong hand isn't strong enough and also as I say you are passing up too many opportuntites with monkeys who will call with any garbage.

I have also managed to spin up small amounts to large amounts and managed to blow large rolls before too. I'll give you a recent example. I had a rotten day about 2 weeks ago and blew a big hole in my roll. In fact just about all that I had in my online accounts, I still had a good proportion of it withdrawn to my bank account fortunately, anyway the next day I limped back to partypoker which is where I have always done better than anywhere else and just deposited enough for a $215 sng, i won that one, and then cashed a few mor etimes in a few more sngs, then i had enough for shortstack strategy in 10-20 plo and I just spun it up from there in the space of 10 days I had recoupled doubled what I lost on that horrible day. Now for those that think that's not possible, remember it's all relative, a guy who $200 is a lot to will be delighted at gettign to $1k and will be careful with that afterwards, when the likes of guys like me though who are used to playing in bigger games , $1k does not mean a whole lot really so we're looking to take chances to spin it up and if we lose it it's well that's not nice but it won't break our heart.

Anyway overall I think it's both a positive and negative thing.

Positive in that if you are to be a winning poker player you are looking for ways to push the boundaries, expand your frontiers if you like.

Negative though in that I do think though when you have a certain roll you should not look to take unneccessary chance with it though.

When you get the urge to be adventurous as I do from time to time, I think it's best to play a different version of poker than your normal game at lower stakes rather than stepping up a level too far.

cardshark202

My vpip is much higher in PLO than NLH and that would be the same with most people I presume.

Flipper

Ste05 wrote:

Is this a thinly veiled brag post, who seeks advice about their on-line poker asking "What am I doing wrong?" when they are currently running at 21.88 PTBB/100.

No, i promise you it's not! I actually don't even know how these figures work. All I know is that green numbers are good and red are bad. I would appreciate it if you could tell me where the strengths and weaknesses are in these stats...

Ste05 wrote:

Here's a question for you: have you ever thought about it the other way, and that the only reason your Live BR hasn't been obliterated from time to time is because there isn't a regular and easy-to-get-to 25/50 Live game??

Well, as some here will agree, live 2/5 PLO games are of much the same size as the 10/20 online - maybe even bigger. I suppose the reason is that the buy-in isn't capped and also a live straddle can change the size of the game. I've often bought into the fitz game for 6k-10k and still been well covered by a couple of stacks. This would never happen online.

pok3rplaya

It seems to me that most people in this forum don't want to say anything out of order to others. People need to get harsh and honest and stop sugar coating all their posts for fear of hurting other peoples feelings. As far as I'm concerned until harsh answers become more common here this forum will be populated by amateur play-for-fun people who's game will not progress.

In one or two threads I've tried to post to-the-point advice and have been shot down for it. So far in this thread I see numerous posts from people with roundabout points and nothing which gets the job done.

1) The OP's problem is that he has no bankroll management skills.
2) If you have no BR skills you will NEVER be a long term winner at poker.
3) You do not fully realise how long the long term really is.
4) (Disclaimer: I don't know much about the OP's skill level) but based on your post and your need to even make a post like this, you are not a winner in the high stakes games you are playing. WHY ARE YOU PLAYING -EV GAMES AND EXPECTING TO WIN?

I want to write more but I've to go to a lecture now. Should give whoever wants, enough time to flame me for being blunt and honest I guess. Shoot...

5starpool

This isn't really a thread I can contribute to properly as my limits are tiny compared to those talked about, but I'll just pop my head in to say that my VPIP for Omaha is much higher than it is for Hold'em (both almost all full ring). It is ~36 vs ~22. I doubt really playing 15% of pots would be profitable, especially given the 'likes to see flops' nature of flipper. 68% or so though is still extremely high I think.

careca

I think Mr Flibble may have hit the nail on the head, with difference between live and online. I watched you one night Flipper (playing poker that is, I wasn't outside your window ) playing the 5/10 omaha on PP. I thought you made a lot of calls (and they were calls rather than raises) with dubious hands. One was for all your stack on an oesd in omaha, and I dont think you had the odds for it. I remember thinking that you wouldn't make it in the Fitz.
Hope you don't think I'm having a dig at you as I haven't done anything of note in poker to go around criticising players,but I was suprised at some of your play that night. Course I don't know if you were on tilt or whatever circumstances were there.

I'd agree with some of the others, when you have a good night, take the majority out and put it in your offline account where you admittedly play much better.

Ste05

Flipper wrote:

No, i promise you it's not! I actually don't even know how these figures work. All I know is that green numbers are good and red are bad. I would appreciate it if you could tell me where the strengths and weaknesses are in these stats...

Well I know less than nothing about PLO, so unfortunately I can't be of any assistance when it comes to PT there. However certainly in NLHE a win rate of 21 PTBB/100 is basically impossible to sustain. Obviously it's all relevant to the stakes people play, but generally anything over 10 is exceptional and those players will quickly move up to the next level, at the highest levels the best players in the world have a PTBB/100 of well below 10, e.g. apparently bldswtrs has a rate of around 8 and lolotrickedu has one at about 6 over 250k hands and these are probably 2 of the best players in the world). So as you can see 21 PTBB/100 is fairly savage.

Just incase you weren't messing and you really don't know what any of those stats mean, PTBB/100 means how many Big Bets you make for every 100 hands you play. [NOTE: Big Bet = 2x Big Blinds, PT was first developed for Limit Poker and measured win rates by Big Bets and Not Big Blinds] So, if you have a PTBB/100 of 21 it means you expect to make 42 BB's per 100 hands, or almost half a buy-in every single time you play 100 hands.

This is a ludicrous figure, you must have been been running SUPER hot to be able to get this kind of figures. Or alternatively you are the best 5/10 and 10/20 PLO player in the world right now. Which one do you think it is??

Here's a link to a web-site I always link people to when a PT thread comes up, it should provide you with all the info you need, although I can only presume it relates to PLO: http://www.bet-the-pot.com/poker-tracker-part-one-page31.html

It really is all just about the long term, proper BR management, tilt control and game selection, etc.

Flipper wrote:

Well, as some here will agree, live 2/5 PLO games are of much the same size as the 10/20 online - maybe even bigger. I suppose the reason is that the buy-in isn't capped and also a live straddle can change the size of the game. I've often bought into the fitz game for 6k-10k and still been well covered by a couple of stacks. This would never happen online.

And what % of your BR is this, my point wasn't about how big the game was, it was: if you could sit down at a Live game with your whole BR would you do it??

You have no problem doing it on-line so why wouldn't you do it Live if there was a regular game running that was big enough??

Gholimoli

I like to think of my self as some one who has a better than average understanding of the game.
Im not talking about playing AK, or being in position or out of position etc. im talking about actually knowing the elements that make the game.
My abilities in putting that knowledge in to practice is also above average (or again I like to think it is) .however my success in terms of winning money has not been good by any standards even though my opponents have mostly been below average.
The reason for this is simply due to bankroll management.
Pure and simple.
You can be gods greatest gift in whatever form of poker you play but if you don’t have any BR management you are bound to go broke again and again and again and again.
The truth of the matter is with out it you will ultimately be a loosing player and will ultimately lose more than you win and believe me this is unavoidable.
People who don’t think this way are really fooling them self’s to no end.
This is the nature of the game.
I truly envy players when I read some where that a particular player has been playing for some years and has only logged money in to their account once or only a few times.
Those are the skills that I really wish to posses and not how to play AK with 15BB in late stages of a tourney.
Another think I wanted to add was that good few people have this perception that out playing opponents and being better at them means to player more pots and play looser.
I read Luckyloyds post in this thread where he says you may feel you can outplay a loose, bad player so you should play looser your self.
This is very wrong in my opinion.
I mean if you have identified a player’s mistake to be that he is loose then exploiting that weakness is not playing looser your self.
HJ always talks about tightening up and not many people listen because they think its uncool or something to play tight.
I wish he would actually do a math demo of why you should play tight in cash games and maybe then people would understand better why playing tight is generally good.

Flipper

pok3rplaya wrote:

1) The OP's problem is that he has no bankroll management skills.
2) If you have no BR skills you will NEVER be a long term winner at poker.
3) You do not fully realise how long the long term really is.
4) (Disclaimer: I don't know much about the OP's skill level) but based on your post and your need to even make a post like this, you are not a winner in the high stakes games you are playing. WHY ARE YOU PLAYING -EV GAMES AND EXPECTING TO WIN?

I play them because the thoughts of grinding in small stakes makes me sick (maybe that's the answer to my own question). Soft games at higher stakes are hard to find. That game on Tribeca has a circle of maybe 15 players and 8 or 9 of them (most of whom I know personally) are good players. 3 are great players. I do agree that my bankroll management is terrible and any points to help me would be appreciated.

Careca, I usually play so bad in the 5/10 game. Cooney always says I'm not right after a session of 5/10 for about 3 days. The limits in the game are ridiculous. With every pot raised to 35 Preflop and 4 to the flop, people are nearly pot committed after the flop! There's no play in the game and it generally just pisses me off.

Hectorjelly

I wasnt having a go at you flipper!

I just think this thread is a bit silly, I mean you are playing ultra high stakes omaha against a field of mostly good and excellent players. From your stats and hand you posted its clear that you err on the side of looseness. I have no idea of your finances but I can only assume you arent properly bankrolled for 6 handed 20 40 omaha (who is!). Its should be no surprise that you have lost your online br repeatadly. To play 20 40 properly I would think you should have a liquid br of over 100k.

What you need to do is pretty obvious, put aside a certain amount of money to play a game, high enough to sustain your interest, but low enough so you are properly bankrolled. For NLH id suggest 25 buyins, not sure what an applicable Omaha guideline would be. Play 30k hands at it, (if you lose more than 4 or 5 buyins drop down) and then see where you are. If you managed to sustain a winrate of over 6PTBB then move up. If not then you arent really playing well enough to go higher and you have some leaks to your game.

Sometimes a pokerplayers ego can be his biggest weakness.

BigCityBanker

Flipper wrote:

I play them because the thoughts of grinding in small stakes makes me sick (maybe that's the answer to my own question).

Flipper this has alot to do with it. I told you in Citywest that I classify myself as a casual online player - I dont maintain bankroll, I play when I feel like it and at whatever stakes I feel like it. Ive played everything from 10c/20c NLHE to 5/10, and from .25/.50 to 5/10 PLO..... Im gonna be honest and say im a bit of a gambler and prone to a punt on the horses hence why I can lodge a buyin for a 5/10 game win it or lose it and get out again... On my visits to 5/10 I had winning sessions but it scared me (and this from a gambler), I understood I wasnt bankrolled to play it and my fear came from the fact that I was scared of getting hooked on playing these stakes after a winning session or two and think I was the greatest poker player ever and before I know it be el busto and be looking over a gate wondering which horse I could sell the quickest. I am currently playing 25c/50c NLHE and I am enjoying my poker more than ever and feel it has also improved my live play - im not gonna make 10k in one session but I know that over my various accounts I could clear a few hundred a month for a 10/12 hours play a week whilst im watching tv and studying the horse racing form. Now with reference to your quote from above - it might make you sick but at least you could be sure that you will make it pay - you could surely destroy 2/4 PLO and if you multitable rather than one tableing 10/20 shorthanded with Halibut and Mercedez1 you may be better off in the long run. The importance of bankroll management has been done to death - me I feel I can survive without a bankroll - I think you may be a bit different tho.

PS: Im reading these PT stats with interest - my 1st 1k hands VPIP=35 / BB/100=21. I love been able to play at this level and whoop ass cos of position/agression.